Rolex Explorer II or Omega Seamaster?

[JBarwick]

Not a huge fan of the ex2 bezel. Combine the ex2 dial/hands with a sub or planet ocean bezel, and I'd know exactly what I'd ask my fiancée to buy me.

So a GMT-II? I mean bezels are slightly different but if you went with the old metal bezel GMT you could buy a Sub bezel and add it to the GMT. A bastard but sounds like it would fit you bill.

[DocDave]

Everyone raises valid points with much to think about.

[MENTION=13155]ryn[/MENTION] I thought your comment about first pondering why you're making the purchase in the first place is a good one. Kind of like know your game plan first before going in a throwing a lot of cash around. Well said, and admittedly something I haven't done. I more or less started thinking that I might be interested in purchasing a new watch and identified two that I liked. From there it was a quick posting here to chat about it and Bob's your uncle.

[MENTION=2341]LesserBlackDog[/MENTION] Your Explorer II is a beautiful watch and you identified many of the reasons why it's on my radar. The white face, the clean lines, the not 'in your face' Rolexness of it. All adds up to a nice watch. So much so that I have the Invicta homage to the Explorer II. Mind you it doesn't get a lot of wrist time these days as I've been favouring the Speedy.

[MENTION=14773]Token[/MENTION] Thanks for the history/information about the price differences.

[Rocco]

If I could only own one watch, it would probably be the 40mm Explorer II like LBD's.

[devastitis]

Not a huge fan of the ex2 bezel. Combine the ex2 dial/hands with a sub or planet ocean bezel, and I'd know exactly what I'd ask my fiancée to buy me.

[LesserBlackDog]

I may be biased but for me it is Explorer II any day of the week and twice on Sundays. IMO there is just something about that austere white dial and black hands that really sets the watch apart from any other Rolex (or any other luxury sports watch, for that matter), while remaining versatile enough to wear with anything from business suits to t-shirt/shorts.



The only (relatively recent) Seamaster that does a lot for me is the discontinued sword-hands Seamaster Professional. I shouldn't be buying any more watches anytime soon but I'd be tempted if I were to find a quartz model in good condition for a good price.

[ajs116]

That is sort of my problem with Omega is that you said Explorer II and we had to guess between white dial vs. black dial. Omega we had at least 20 options to ponder over and who knows how many special editions from the past you could select from. The only time this is a pain with Rolex is the DJ range which has a ton of options and dials

Ah, the paradox of choice

[DRM]

This is really more like debating between an Acura and a Mercedes. Both are very nice products and you could be happy with either, but the Rolex is about twice the price and far more prestigious. Put another way -- if you could theoretically buy either for the same price, which would you go with? If the question is which is a better value, it becomes a different conversation.

[Alex.C]

In choosing a watch for my tenth anniversary last year, I went with the Seamster, albeit a modified version that IMO combines the best parts of the old 300m (slimness) and the Planet Ocean (bezel) It helped greatly that the Omega was much cheaper. Freed up enough money for us to spend 3 weeks in Italy. Happy wife, happy life an all that.

[Token]

[MENTION=13026]Evenflow[/MENTION] yes! I did a quick and dirty search on WatchRecon and you're 100% accurate on the price. I had no idea the price difference would be so great. Any ideas as to why?

[MENTION=14142]flatbear[/MENTION] good question. I'm thinking 300m.

The price difference exists because Rolex has a (significantly) better brand image compared to Omega. There's more prestige associated with a Rolex, so even people who don't care or know anything about watches might still want to purchase a Rolex for other reasons. Especially on the secondary market, Rolex retains value much better than Omega does (for the most part).

As for Explorer II vs. Seamaster, it comes down to personal preference. Once you get into that price range, you're paying thousands of dollars for marginal improvements or features, so I think it's hard to make an objective case for either. The Explorer II doesn't really speak to me design wise so if I had to choose between that and a Seamaster 300 I'd take the Seamaster. If it was Sub vs. Seamaster I'd have a much harder time choosing.

[JBarwick]

[MENTION=13026]Evenflow[/MENTION] yes! I did a quick and dirty search on WatchRecon and you're 100% accurate on the price. I had no idea the price difference would be so great. Any ideas as to why?

[MENTION=14142]flatbear[/MENTION] good question. I'm thinking 300m.

From a brand new standpoint, Rolex doesn't offer discounts these days vs. Omega which you can likely get a discount on. Looks like you can get a Omega Seamaster 300m from Jomasshop for <$4K but the Rolex will cost $7-$8K depending on if you go through an AD vs. gray market dealer.

That is sort of my problem with Omega is that you said Explorer II and we had to guess between white dial vs. black dial. Omega we had at least 20 options to ponder over and who knows how many special editions from the past you could select from. The only time this is a pain with Rolex is the DJ range which has a ton of options and dials

[ryn]

I don't know much about watches, but it seems to me that it would be helpful to have some philosophy when it comes to collecting. I think first you should ask yourself are you, and do you want to be a collector in the same sense that people collect stamps? or do you want to approach it from a style perspective and consider how it fits into your wardrobe?

I think collectors often try and go for some sort of completeness. This can of course mean having all divers or having one diver, one GMT etc. You can also do this with brands, but unless you are really into a brand, I don't suggest going this route.

The style approach would consider aesthetics more than anything. This is mostly how we approach most topics on threads. Questions like, which looks better? How often will I wear it? Is it visually different than what I own?

Watches are a bit different then when it comes with this than say shoes or pants. They are small accessories, versatile, durable and forgiving. So basically you can't go wrong, except if you have a watch that you end up never wearing because you always prefer another that you already have. I would prioritize stylistic diversity over brand diversity.

[winghus]

I know, I know. That's like asking Honda or Toyota, Ford or GM, etc. But anyway...

I think it's more of a "BMW or Mercedes" thing versus the car brands you used, lol.

[DocDave]

[MENTION=13026]Evenflow[/MENTION] yes! I did a quick and dirty search on WatchRecon and you're 100% accurate on the price. I had no idea the price difference would be so great. Any ideas as to why?

[MENTION=14142]flatbear[/MENTION] good question. I'm thinking 300m.

[flatbear]

a seamaster 300m or a seamaster planet ocean?

[Evenflow]

Without actually looking, a used Explorer 2 is going to run quite a bit more (2-3x) than a used Seamaster. I have one of the late 90's Seamasters, and it's a great watch that could probably be had lightly used for a grand. Used Explorer 2's are 4 or 5 grand.